Clearly, every woman and minority should sue after every paycheck, just in case. That's what the Supreme Court seems to be suggesting. If some enterprising lawyers can start taking these cases based on a % of winnings/pro bono, that should get the court to reverse itself pretty quickly. Hell, companies that have to defend against these would find themselves begging the Supreme Court to hear the cases. The Supreme Court would have no choice but to reverse itself or be swamped.

Scalia and some of the other Right Wing Morons that are currently on the bench have provided ample cause for impeachment in the form of conflict of interest. Congress should start there and worry about dealing with Bush & Cheney in criminal court after their terms.

Can I once more offer up a big "Thanks!" to the Democrats who so wisely decided to hold off on using the Supreme Court nominee filibuster so that they could save it for a real crisis. Thank god the court didn't shift while they prudently held on to their trump card!

Wankers.

How much more evidence do the American people need to see before we understand that the 'freedom and liberty' G.I.s are fighting for around the world is the freedom of corporate power to exploit, poison, damage and destroy without limit or accountability. Resources, the environment, workers.... whatever it takes in the pursuit of power and profit! This is not a free democracy and the entire world is being transformed into a corporate state.

For a broader perspective and more...:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/25/1439/

Vast corporate, fascist wasteland indeed.

Rise up people. Turn off the TV and READ yo! That is, if we have enough time and energy to muster after we get home from our meaningless jobs. Unfortunately, we will continue to be wage slaves until we realize who our real enemies are and take action.

It's hardly the Court's fault that Congress drafted the legislation poorly. Congress can easily fix this, just pass legislation to clarify.

If some enterprising lawyers can start taking these cases based on a % of winnings/pro bono, that should get the court to reverse itself pretty quickly.

There aren't going to be any cases. The SCOTUS has killed the law entirely.

See, the damages a woman can sue for would be, theoretically, the difference between what she earned and what she should have earned. Cutting her rights off after six months worth of employment doesn't add up to enough of a dollar amount that would be worth hiring a lawyer for. It doesn't add up to enough money to compensate a lawyer, even if it was taken on a %age basis.

The law works only if the dollar amount the woman stands to gain is big enough to make it worth the time and expense of litigation, after taking into account the fact that she will never be hired again for the rest of her life once the lawsuit is filed.

and a slap in the face for every woman and minority who wants to live a fair life in the states.

but then, this country is headed down the wrong path anyway, as record numbers of people being polled attest.

The Supreme Court basically just gave all employers carte blanche to discriminate. I can see it now... they have to follow EEOC regulations for hiring, but once they hire minorities and women, they can feel free to pay them way less. Unbelievable!

—and of course, is predominantly male.

The EEOC was on Ledbetter's side. But once things reached the Supreme Court, the Bush administration sent a brief arguing against the EEOC's position. From the NYT article:

As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of Justice Alito’s presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing about the opposite result.

What the majority fail to appreciate is that in a large sense, pay discrimination is theft of opportunity as well as money. If they would only consider that the employer's profits over this theft increase over time, and that the party discriminated against has reduced options in the future because of discrimination. When an employer hires someone for less pay, whether she knows it at the time or not, her next job will probably be for lower pay as well. She will find it cumulatively harder and harder to obtain work at an appropriate rate of pay. It's harder to take time to look for a better job (she may have to work longer hours or two jobs, to meet her and any dependents' needs). Her ability to get more training and advance is hampered by a lack of funds, and her better-paid competitors have a definite edge. This happens not over months, but years. Mere accounting of paychecks doesn't begin to even the scales.

Perhaps our unequal representation in the highest levels of government is more of a problem than we like to admit.

Company match for 401(k)is usually a % of base salary; annual bonuses are also a % of base salary.

It seems to me that the court was clearing up ambiguity in the law. Congress set the deadline for a reason. I understand the problem, with pay, a 1% difference in pay raises can add up over 20 years but the EEOC current interpertation made the deadline irrevalant if you still worked for the company. Under their rule she could have receive a 5% less raise than her co-workers 10 years ago but receive the same raise for the following 9 years as her co-workers and still file a discrimatory claim.

Anonymous writes:

"It seems to me that the court was clearing up ambiguity in the law. Congress set the deadline for a reason. I understand the problem, with pay, a 1% difference in pay raises can add up over 20 years but the EEOC current interpertation made the deadline irrevalant if you still worked for the company. Under their rule she could have receive a 5% less raise than her co-workers 10 years ago but receive the same raise for the following 9 years as her co-workers and still file a discrimatory claim."

Assuming that you are correct that the law is ambiguous (a highly dubious proposition, especially considering precedent) then why does it automatically follow that the alito-view should prevail? In other words, how is the situation that you describe any less absurd then the situation Ginsburg describes in her dissent? How come the dissent isn't Alito urging Congress to amend the law to prohibit the woman you describe from suing? At the very least (and, again, I think that the dissent clearly has the correct view), if the law is so ambiguous, then what explains the smug satisfaction of conservatives in writing about this decision?